Protectionism is alive and well in Australia with some of the biggest culprits raising their heads last week.
In the news have been whingeing apple growers, upset they may finally have to compete with trans-Tasman imports. Since 1921 Australia has imposed a blanket ban on New Zealand apples, supposedly to prevent the spread of fire blight disease.
The problem with this reason is that it is a load of rubbish.
Scientific evidence now makes it clear that fire blight is not actually spread by mature fruit. This is why the World Trade Organisation ruled in 2003 it is not an acceptable reason to block imports. Australia simply ignored the ruling.
Now, even Biosecurity Australia has been forced to face facts. It admits New Zealand apples should be allowed, but with excessively onerous conditions. Growers will be forced to pay for costly inspections and treatments, making it far too expensive for most to afford.
It is political science, not biological science, driving Australia’s actions. Just like underarm bowling, the rules are stretched (and ignored) because of blatant self-interest. In the words of former New Zealand agriculture minister Jim Sutton, “Australians cheat in matters of biosecurity, and . . . the concept of honest science has no meaning there.”
The New Zealand government is considering taking a complaint to the WTO, and so they should. It is a case they would almost certainly win, given the 2003 precedent. Perhaps even the threat will be enough to bring change.
A case brought against Australia would be a bad look for a country that founded the Cairns Group to push for more liberal trade in agriculture. You can hardly expect the big trade culprits (the United States, European Union and Japan) to treat you fairly when you won’t practise what you preach.
If Australia doesn’t want to abide by the rules of agreements like closer economic relations and the WTO, then the answer is obvious: don’t sign up for them.
The situation with bananas is just as bad. Most Australians shrug at the high prices and blame Cyclone Larry, but the real reason is hypocritical trade policies.
Once again it is spurious biosecurity reasoning which prohibits imports from the Philippines and South America. This makes John Howard’s attempt to blame bananas for inflation even more ironic.
Meanwhile, over in New Zealand bananas are about $1.99 a kilo.
Back in the 1980s New Zealand was also guilty of shonky trade practices, along with massive subsidies for unproductive farmers. Since then the Kiwis have cleaned up their act and the results are clear. New Zealand now has the third lowest unemployment rate in the world and farmers are the strongest critics of protectionism.
Australia’s double standard on trade is bad news for New Zealand, but the biggest losers are Australian consumers.
Phil Rennie is a policy analyst with the Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > The blight of restrictive trade policy
The blight of restrictive trade policy
Protectionism is alive and well in Australia with some of the biggest culprits raising their heads last week.
In the news have been whingeing apple growers, upset they may finally have to compete with trans-Tasman imports. Since 1921 Australia has imposed a blanket ban on New Zealand apples, supposedly to prevent the spread of fire blight disease.
The problem with this reason is that it is a load of rubbish.
Scientific evidence now makes it clear that fire blight is not actually spread by mature fruit. This is why the World Trade Organisation ruled in 2003 it is not an acceptable reason to block imports. Australia simply ignored the ruling.
Now, even Biosecurity Australia has been forced to face facts. It admits New Zealand apples should be allowed, but with excessively onerous conditions. Growers will be forced to pay for costly inspections and treatments, making it far too expensive for most to afford.
It is political science, not biological science, driving Australia’s actions. Just like underarm bowling, the rules are stretched (and ignored) because of blatant self-interest. In the words of former New Zealand agriculture minister Jim Sutton, “Australians cheat in matters of biosecurity, and . . . the concept of honest science has no meaning there.”
The New Zealand government is considering taking a complaint to the WTO, and so they should. It is a case they would almost certainly win, given the 2003 precedent. Perhaps even the threat will be enough to bring change.
A case brought against Australia would be a bad look for a country that founded the Cairns Group to push for more liberal trade in agriculture. You can hardly expect the big trade culprits (the United States, European Union and Japan) to treat you fairly when you won’t practise what you preach.
If Australia doesn’t want to abide by the rules of agreements like closer economic relations and the WTO, then the answer is obvious: don’t sign up for them.
The situation with bananas is just as bad. Most Australians shrug at the high prices and blame Cyclone Larry, but the real reason is hypocritical trade policies.
Once again it is spurious biosecurity reasoning which prohibits imports from the Philippines and South America. This makes John Howard’s attempt to blame bananas for inflation even more ironic.
Meanwhile, over in New Zealand bananas are about $1.99 a kilo.
Back in the 1980s New Zealand was also guilty of shonky trade practices, along with massive subsidies for unproductive farmers. Since then the Kiwis have cleaned up their act and the results are clear. New Zealand now has the third lowest unemployment rate in the world and farmers are the strongest critics of protectionism.
Australia’s double standard on trade is bad news for New Zealand, but the biggest losers are Australian consumers.
Phil Rennie is a policy analyst with the Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: